Yes, as a matter of fact we can.

So, Congressman Pelosi, since you know the Constitution so well, perhaps you can answer a simple, direct question about it: Where, by article and section or amendment and section, is Congress empowered to provide, promote, or even assist with medical care? And would you please quote the exact text where such authorization is made? I'll hold.

OK, so, let me get this straight: a man in his upper 30s can claim to be a transexual and claim to be raising money for the surgery (meaning it hasn't happened yet) and THAT'S ALL IT TAKES TO LET HIM IN THE LADIES ROOM ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS??? So what would stop a potential rapist from being allowed into lady's bathrooms, locker rooms, dorms, etc? I mean, all he has to do is call him self by a girl's name and say he's trying to get money for a sex change. Forget for a minute all the arguments about "transexual rights." How easily could a decision like this be abused? And what are the potential consequences?

For example, federal laws banning murder are only enforceable when the crime is committed on federal property (a park, a building, a military base, etc), or against certain federal employees (Elected officials, Appointed officials (judges, cabinet members, etc), law enforcement officers, or military members in the course of their duties). Tim McVeigh faced only 8 counts of murder in federal court, despite having killed almost 170 people. Otherwise such laws belong to the states.

It SHOULD be banned in all circumstances (even the "life of the mother" crack is enough to colapse the dam, that provision was in many laws that existed pre Roe v Wade.) However, federal law should not be used if it is possible to avoid. The best of all possible cases will be the overturn of the unconstitutional Roe v Wade ruling. Roe v Wade overturned state laws without any constitutional reason. The Federal bench (including SCOTUS) does not have the authority to rule on state laws unless they directly conflict with the Constitution, and abortion laws do not. (Article 3, the 10th amendment, and the 14th amendment).

And so it goes for abortion. If everyone truly understood the consequences of abortion - the intentional, unjustifyable killing of another human being - only a very few would ever actually occur. But people delude themselves by looking at the apparent goods: I don't like it but not everyone shares my view, my husband would harm me/himself/someone else if he knew about this affair, my parents will harm me if I'm pregnant, I can't afford a baby, the baby is deformed/defective, It's not a real person, It's my body, I want a boy.

When you boil it down, abortion is nothing more or less than a grave evil. As with all evils of the world, millions can "justify" their own abortion or their support for abortion or their ambivilance toward abortion by turning abortion into an apparent good. When asked to choose between an obvious good and an obvious evil, people will generally choose the good - excepting the truly depraved. So evil deeds are not usually done by people who believe those deeds to be evil. The much more difficult choice is between a good and an apparent good. Do we treat homosexual conduct as a morally depraved act (a good) or do we "give" homosexuals the "right" to "marry" (an apparent good)?

And don't declaw your cat. It's cruel.

It was true of blacks during slavery, too. (Which was supported by which party again?)

Could you cite the examples please? I'd really like to know what women can't get healthcare.